Some questions about Francis Schaeffer's thought

[cih1355]

I have been reading Schaeffer's book, Escape from Reason, and I have some questions about it.

In the particular edition that I have, J.P. Moreland wrote the foreward and he said that some critics think that Schaeffer misrepresented some thinkers. Do you think that these critics are correct? If so, which thinkers did Schaeffer misrepresent?

What did Schaeffer mean when he said that nature eats up grace?

If you begin with autonomous rationality what you come to is mathematics and mathematics only deals with particulars, not universals. Can anyone explain why it is the case that when you begin with autonomous rationality, you come up with particulars, not universals?

Does the distinction between freedom and nature have to do with free will and determinism?

 

[Tim]

Curt,

These are big questions. I am wondering if you can post a few specific quotes from the book. The context might help us all provide some meaningful answers, as your questions are quite broad.

 

[cih1355]

I am going to quote Schaeffer from his book, Escape from Reason, the IVP Classics edition.

Schaeffer says, "In Aquinas's view, the will of man was fallen, but the intellect was not. From this incomplete view of the biblical Fall flowed all the subsequent difficulties. Man's intellect became autonomous. In one realm man was now independent, autonomous. This sphere of the autonomous in Aquinas takes on various forms. One result, for example, was the development of natural theology. In this view, natural theology is a theology that could be pursued independently from the Scriptures. Though it was an autonomous study, he hoped for unity and said that there was a correlation between natural theology and the Scriptures. But the important point in what followed was that a really autonomous area was set up." (Chapter 1, p. 16)

Is the above paragraph an accurate representation of what Aquinas believed?

Schaeffer says, "Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) opened the way for the discussion of what is usually called, 'nature' and 'grace'" (Chapter 1, p.13) Schaeffer goes on to define grace as "God the Creator; Heaven and heavenly things; The unseen and its influence on the earth; man's soul; unity" (Chapter 1, p. 14) Schaeffer defines nature as "The created; earth and earthly things; The visible and what nature and man do on earth; man's body; diversity" (Chapter 1, p.14)

Schaeffer talks about different painters who became interested in nature. Schaeffer says, "This interest in nature as God made it is, as we have seen, good and proper. But Aquinas had opened the way to an autonomous Humanism, an autonomous philosophy, and once the movement gained momentum, there was soon a flood. The vital principle to notice is that, as nature was made autonomous, nature began to 'eat up' grace. Through the Renaissance, from the time of Dante to Michelangelo, nature became gradually more totally autonomous. It was set free from God as the humanistic philosophers began to operate ever more freely." (Chapter 1, p. 18)

What does Schaeffer mean by nature eating up grace? Does he mean that man tried to become independent from God in all areas of life?

I will post more quotes later on.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You should listen to Riddlebergers lectures on Schaeffer. Riddleberger states that Schaeffer over speculates Thomas Aquinas contribution to humanism and the independence of reason from the fall.

Christ Reformed Info - MP3's and Real Audio (of Academy Lectures)

 

[Grymir]

Schaeffer is correct in what he is saying. Aquinas laid the philosophical foundations that later people drew from to get to humanism. Aquinas didn't think that way, but laid the epistemological 'framework'. Natural theology gave rise to 'science' which gave rise to humanism. The Riddleberger lectures are good, I just happen to dis-agree on that point.

I too have that book with the J.P. Moreland intro, and I think the critics are wrong. They don't think 'philosophically', in the real sense. They think 'philosophically' in the modern use of philosophy were the method is the most important thing. What is the ultimate reality is the highest 'level' of philosophy and it's ultimate quest. Epistomology is 'second'. It defines how we know what we know. Modern philosophers get hung up on that, and Aquinas laid the foundations. It was picked up by Decarte when he made man the determiner of 'truth' or 'knowledge'. Which then gave rise to Kant and Hume, who are bad philosophers. How we know 'reality' became center stage instead of what 'reality' is. Man determines 'truth' instead of man discovering 'truth'. Schaeffer takes it from there in his book.

 

[Vytautas]

They think 'philosophically' in the modern use of philosophy were the method is the most important thing. What is the ultimate reality is the highest 'level' of philosophy and it's ultimate quest. Epistomology is 'second'. It defines how we know what we know. Modern philosophers get hung up on that, and Aquinas laid the foundations. It was picked up by Decarte when he made man the determiner of 'truth' or 'knowledge'. Which then gave rise to Kant and Hume, who are bad philosophers. How we know 'reality' became center stage instead of what 'reality' is. Man determines 'truth' instead of man discovering 'truth'.

Modern man thinks he is original. The ancient greek philosophers thought about these things long before he came on the scene. If you want to study unbelief, just read Plato.

-----Added 12/10/2008 at 01:13:15 EST-----

Schaeffer talks about different painters who became interested in nature. Schaeffer says, "This interest in nature as God made it is, as we have seen, good and proper. But Aquinas had opened the way to an autonomous Humanism, an autonomous philosophy, and once the movement gained momentum, there was soon a flood. The vital principle to notice is that, as nature was made autonomous, nature began to 'eat up' grace. Through the Renaissance, from the time of Dante to Michelangelo, nature became gradually more totally autonomous. It was set free from God as the humanistic philosophers began to operate ever more freely." (Chapter 1, p. 18)

What does Schaeffer mean by nature eating up grace? Does he mean that man tried to become independent from God in all areas of life?

Schaeffer means that Thomas Aquinas believed that the intellect was free from sin. So man can do no wrong is his thinking, but just in willing, since the will is corrupted from the fall. So man became autonomus in his thinking, but over hundereds of years, that freedom in thinking led to the Renaissence where man became completely autonomus in his intellect and will.

 

[Tim]

Interesting. I am learning lots here. Keep it coming, guys.

 

[Grymir]

They think 'philosophically' in the modern use of philosophy were the method is the most important thing. What is the ultimate reality is the highest 'level' of philosophy and it's ultimate quest. Epistemology is 'second'. It defines how we know what we know. Modern philosophers get hung up on that, and Aquinas laid the foundations. It was picked up by Decarte when he made man the determiner of 'truth' or 'knowledge'. Which then gave rise to Kant and Hume, who are bad philosophers. How we know 'reality' became center stage instead of what 'reality' is. Man determines 'truth' instead of man discovering 'truth'.

Modern man thinks he is original. The ancient Greek philosophers thought about these things long before he came on the scene. If you want to study unbelief, just read Plato.

I know. I think modern philosophers are idiots. I guess you haven't read many of my posts. I read Ayn Rand first. She's my favorite still. Then I read Plato, then Augustine's City of God, then some Aristotle. Next up was Schaeffer. Brilliant Then when I was in college, I had to read Hume, Berkley, Decarte, and Leibniz. Junk when compaired to the other. They lack any philosophical 'metaphysics' and got hung up on methods. Kirkegaard and Barth are also not worth it. Especially Barth. He' so boring and doesn't have any grasp of what the Bible is really about.

That's how I knew that the into stuff was a little off, and the critics were wrong because they embraced modern philosophy instead of being a real philosopher. Aquinas seperated theology from natural science. The super-natural from the natural. Which Decarte picked up on, and the rest is history.

There you go Tim. I'll keep more a commin. I like topics like this too!

-----Added 12/11/2008 at 03:54:44 EST-----

What did Schaeffer mean when he said that nature eats up grace?

If you begin with autonomous rationality what you come to is mathematics and mathematics only deals with particulars, not universals. Can anyone explain why it is the case that when you begin with autonomous rationality, you come up with particulars, not universals?

To answer the first, that's kinda what I've been talking about in my posts, about the seperation between the supernatural (grace) and the natural (nature).

As to the second, I'll have to get back on that. It's late and I want to go to bed and hold my wife near.

 

[jwithnell]

This later comes to fruition when Locke and then the enlightenment thinkers talked about some truths being self-evident and moral law that can be discovered in much the same way we discover the physical universe.

 

[cih1355]

I found the answer to my third question. In the last chapter of Escape from Reason, Schaeffer says, "There are two concepts of ideas of knowing which must be kept separate. The first is the rationalistic or humanistic concept, namely, that man beginning totally independent and autonomous from all else can build a bridge toward ultimate truth- as if attempting to build a cantilever bridge out from himself across an infinite gorge. This is not possible because man is finite and as such he has nothing toward which he can point with certainty. He has no way, beginning from himself to set up sufficient universals. Satre has seen this very clearly when as a result of finding no infinite reference point, he comes to the conclusion that everything must be absurd."

 

[ChristianTrader]

I found the answer to my third question. In the last chapter of Escape from Reason, Schaeffer says, "There are two concepts of ideas of knowing which must be kept separate. The first is the rationalistic or humanistic concept, namely, that man beginning totally independent and autonomous from all else can build a bridge toward ultimate truth- as if attempting to build a cantilever bridge out from himself across an infinite gorge. This is not possible because man is finite and as such he has nothing toward which he can point with certainty. He has no way, beginning from himself to set up sufficient universals. Satre has seen this very clearly when as a result of finding no infinite reference point, he comes to the conclusion that everything must be absurd."

So can a person who has never seen a Bible or talked to a Christian have certainty in any of his beliefs?

CT

 

[Grymir]

Depends on what you mean by beliefs. It's such a vague term. Schaeffer is talking about universals. Which no-one can get to from starting within himself, or by looking at the particulars. My knowledge of God and the Bible is not a belief. It is based on knowledge. Since the Bible comes from outside our space time continuum, it is a metaphysical statement that contains the universals.

So no, a person who hasn't read and used the Bible can't be accurate in his "beliefs".